[HN Gopher] Where did the other dollar go, Jeff? ___________________________________________________________________ Where did the other dollar go, Jeff? Author : ezrast Score : 298 points Date : 2021-04-28 10:57 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.cloudandtree.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.cloudandtree.com) | Grimm1 wrote: | First I clicked on this hoping it was some interesting thing to | learn, and then I saw it quickly devolved into another Bezos | rant. | | Second what weird quibbling over standard language. I read this | and feel like I'd prefer to have my time back. "I'm not endorsing | an ideology" no instead you'll make it painfully obvious which | one you don't. | | "I'm just meeting the claims on their own terms in the pursuit of | that which I truly value, which is quibbling about math." | | And then proceeded to basically do nothing on the math, but argue | about value creation or consumption. | | I'm not stating if I agree or not, don't take this as that, I | just feel the author was basically misrepresenting their goals in | the post. | ezrast wrote: | For what it's worth, I find this feedback useful, despite the | downvotes it garnered. I think it's important not to | misrepresent my biases when I write, and doing that even- | handedly can be difficult, so if it's not landing with people I | like to know. | Grimm1 wrote: | Yeah sorry I may have been too harsh in my initial reply, and | really nothing against you in particular, but I did get | through it feeling a bit angry over it. FWIW, I agree with | some of your points for sure and disagree with others I just | felt misled and I think that's why in part I responded so | harshly. | lucasmullens wrote: | No matter how bad an article is, "I read this and feel like I'd | prefer to have my time back" is sort of just a mean thing to | say and doesn't contribute to the conversation. | ct0 wrote: | The title of the piece includes "Jeff", As in Jeff Bozos. I | read your comment and would like my time back too. | Grimm1 wrote: | It's a bad piece of writing. That offered no value. Every | business uses the language Bezos used, and it also is very | much up to interpretation on their view of value creation and | consumption. | enragedcacti wrote: | If me and my two friends buy paintings from each other for | 1 Billion dollars in a circle, did we create 3 Billion | dollars in value? No, we created 3 mediocre paintings. | Bezos (and every other business, as you mentioned) plays | the same game by double and triple counting and changing | the definition of value to suit each case. You are right | that what value means is up to debate; but Bezos here uses | many different definitions at once to reach his number | which isn't adhering to any particular ideology other than | "Amazon good". | | I think the most obvious example of this is with the | workers: | | >The most egregious misrepresentation of value creation in | the letter is the $91 billion figure that Amazon has paid | out in compensation to employees. This is patently | ridiculous. Every single dollar of compensation paid out is | done transactionally: it is used to purchase labor. | | > And it estimates the time saved by consumers who shopped | at Amazon instead of brick-and-mortar stores, and-- in a | particularly bold move, considering that just a few | paragraphs ago it ascribed no value whatsoever to the time | of its own employees-- attaches a dollar value to those | hours and throws that on the pile as well. | | This is a shell game where amazon gets to take credit for | paying its employees for their hours and also take credit | for those hours as value. | onionisafruit wrote: | It didn't occur to me that the Jeff in the title was Jeff | Bezos until after I clicked. I probably wouldn't have read | the article if I realized. That would have been my loss. I | enjoyed the article. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Value is never created in a vacuum. If you could implement an | idea that leverages 0.01$ of value from 500,000,000 people, you | have yourself at least a $1,000,000 company. | Grimm1 wrote: | We use the exchange of money to approximate value. You won't pay | me $1,000 dollars for my mousepad, because you don't value it at | that. Someone around here used a bad example of rigging art | prices, but the reality is, that painting is now valued at | whatever 10's of millions of dollars it is regardless of personal | feelings of mediocrity. | | Money is of course not value, and I'm sorry, but that is a | completely basic statement that I'm surprised to see so many | people it's just dawning on them now, but it is the tool we use | to approximate actual value in our transactions, whether that be | for labor purchase, value passed on to share holders etc. Of | course it's an approximation with issues, someone define value | for me? You can't because value is different to everyone but we | use money to express the value we perceive something to have in | matters of business. | | The writer here doesn't seem to understand basic economics and | money as a proxy for value, again in business, which seems likely | and they should probably stay in their lane just like we tell | other people who write things they know nothing about. | | This standard proxy of value is true in every purchase you make, | your salary, his stock value etc. and it's the standard we use, | and is it perfect, hell no, but it's worked since the concept of | exchanging coins in place of cows and barrels of spice came | around and we haven't seen anything supplant it yet. The fact the | author is quibbling over semantics to me means there is not much | of an actual argument being made and everyone here just ate it | up. | seoaeu wrote: | The author directly acknowledges that money can be used to | measure value: | | > I'm going to tacitly accept [...] that "value" can | meaningfully be expressed in terms of United States dollars | | That doesn't mean you can just sum up a bunch of dollar figures | and have the total make any logical sense. Doubly so when you | are arguing that the sum represents value you created and not | just the values of things you interacted with. | | Like if a bank teller takes $5000 dollars and deposits it into | a customer's account, they haven't created anywhere close to | $5000 because the owner already had it when they walked through | the doors of the bank. And if you add that number to the bank | teller's wages and the price of a safe deposit box at the bank | down the street, you haven't discovered the value of the | transaction... all you've got is nonsense. | seoaeu wrote: | Amusing that the original letter from Jeff Bezos doesn't list | taxes paid as counting towards value provided to others. For a | more 'normal' company that would be high on the list of ways | they're contributing to society. But of course that doesn't work | nearly as well when you're not actually paying much in taxes... | bartimus wrote: | > If I give you an apple and you give me an orange, the total | amount of fruit in the economy remains constant. | | That's not entirely correct. The economy isn't a zero sum game. | If person A has 2 apples and person B has 2 oranges. They trade 1 | apple for 1 orange. Now they both have an apple and an orange. | | The value is increased for both parties. | ChrisLomont wrote: | >In a typical transaction, no value is created | | This claim isn't true - it completely ignores producer and | consumer surplus. It adds nothing to the economy, but it adds | value to both sides of the transaction. | | Suppose A and B trade items a and b. This happens because A | values item b more than B does, and B values item a more than A | does. So by trading both sides have more value to them than | originally. | | Almost zero trades happen right at the margin. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | >>> If I give you an apple and you give me an orange, the total | amount of fruit in the economy remains constant. We can't create | fruit by bartering with it. We can only do so by foraging or | cultivating an orchard. | | Isn't this principle the entire Financial industry? | necovek wrote: | Heh, also reminds me of all the "piracy lost us this much" | statements from Microsoft back in the day, and movie and music | industry until recently (it's now "streaming nets us too little" | instead). | | As if there would have been a guaranteed transaction at sticker | prices for each and every illegally copied unit. | seiferteric wrote: | > Every single dollar of compensation paid out is done | transactionally: it is used to purchase labor. | | This is my gripe whenever I hear about my employer "covering" | part of my health insurance or other benefit etc... No, I pay for | EVERYTHING with my labor. | Pfhreak wrote: | Including the profit your employer retains -- employers | necessarily pay you less than the value of your labor. | dragonwriter wrote: | > employers necessarily pay you less than the value of your | labor. | | That's not true "necessarily" unless you assume all employers | are sustainable, in idealized competitive markets, and that | all of their inputs are also purchased in idealized | competitive markets such that they don't have monopsony | savings they can spend on surplus wages without impacting | sustainability. | | Obviously, even with idealized market assumptions, one reason | an firms fail is paying more total for inputs than the value | they produce, and lots of firms fail. | Pfhreak wrote: | Ok, that's fair, I was painting with a broad brush. I | acknowledge that yes, employers can pay employees more than | the value they bring in, but it's likely that doing so | isn't sustainable long term. | | And I dodged entirely around worker coops and other | arrangements where the excess value is distributed back to | employees. | robocat wrote: | > employers necessarily pay you less than the value of your | labor. | | Untrue. Employers aim for that but they often fail. | | The Credit Suisse employees that lost $5 billion due to | Archegos were overpaid. | | Alternatively if I am the only person that can do a | particular necessary job for a business, I should be able to | reap the majority of the profits due to my monopoly. | | Finally, for some professional jobs productivity is hard to | measure, yet you may employ many people because in aggregate | they make a profit. At an individual level, the profit margin | can vary from negative to positive. | seiferteric wrote: | That part is fine and understood when you take a job with a | for profit company. I just don't like it when employers think | that are doing you some sort of favor. | modeless wrote: | > I'm going to tacitly accept some of Bezos' underlying | assumptions [...] I'm just meeting the claims on their own terms | [...] | | > In a typical transaction, no value is created. If I give you an | apple and you give me an orange, the total amount of fruit in the | economy remains constant. | | Right here he has already failed to abide by his assertions in | the previous paragraph. The transaction in fruit _does_ create | value because it transfers fruit from people who want it less to | people who want it more. Improving the distribution of fruit in | the world is valuable even when the total amount of fruit does | not change. | | The value Bezos is talking about is not the same idea of "value" | that this guy has in his head. Sure, maybe Bezos is overcounting | his value. But arguments like the above are just missing the | point. | greatgib wrote: | I think that you did not grasp the concept of "value" that is | used in the article. | | There is a difference between the general "value" and an amount | of money that pre-exist anyway. In the same way, the "monay | value you give to something" is not the "value" of the thing. | | For example, if you buy 10$ a stock that has a financial value | of 100$, you had a good deal btut the stock value is still | 100$. | | In the case of the apple transaction, if the price you got the | apple is 10$, and now the product and conditions are the same, | but because of the demand some people are ready to buy it 20$ | from you. It was not 10$ of value created but just transferred. | Someone got a bigger part of money and the other one has less | money remaining. But the total amount of money stays the same | globally. | modeless wrote: | I think that you did not grasp my point, which is that the | article claimed to be making a good faith argument accepting | Bezos's assumptions, but then in the very next paragraph | started using different assumptions about the definition of | value. | JKCalhoun wrote: | I thought Bezos was attaching a monetary amount ($) to that | value though -- so pointing out that a fruit swap is zero-sum, | monetarily, seems on point. | modeless wrote: | It's common to quantify value in units of dollars. It doesn't | literally mean that money was printed. | paxys wrote: | Using Amazon's analogy, they exchanged an apple for an orange | and are claiming they created an apple + orange worth of value. | Really the value created is (1) the profit, which goes to their | shareholders and (2) the benefit to their customer of having an | orange instead of an apple, which is probably measurable but | not quite as much as what they are claiming. | kixiQu wrote: | "Employees' contribution to Amazon is literally zero; they should | be appreciative of all this Value _we_ generate for _them_ by | giving them money " is a pretty rough thing to read in that | shareholder letter, not gonna lie. That insulting of an | implication could only make it into a final draft in such an | obvious state if it really reflects how the top people think, and | that's... rough. | bombcar wrote: | If you care more about the dollar than Amazon: | | https://www.mathsisfun.com/puzzles/where-did-the-dollar-go--... | | >When the Waiter returns 3 dollars, the 3 friends had paid $25 to | the Cashier and $2 to the Waiter. $25+$2 = $27 = 3 x $9. | StevenWaterman wrote: | It clicked for me when I allowed negative balances | Customers: 0 -30 -30 -27 Hotel : 0 30 25 25 | Bellhop : 0 0 5 2 Total : 0 0 0 0 | [deleted] | rthomas6 wrote: | As an aside, this shows the value and reason behind double | entry bookkeeping. More setup in the beginning, but | ultimately much less confusing. | Joker_vD wrote: | "The bellhop, who is very nice, takes $5 from the register | and return $2 to each tourist, paying $1 from his pocket-- | the guests don't have to fuss over uneven change that way. | | Now, each of the three tourists has spent $8, for a total of | $24. The bellhop has spent $1, which brings the total to $25. | Where did the other 5 dollars go?" | | "The bellhop, who is very much not honest, takes $10 from the | register and return only $1 to each tourist, pocketing the | remaining $7-- the guests don't have to fuss over uneven | change that way. | | Now, each of the three tourists has spent $9, for a total of | $27. The bellhop has retained $7, which brings the total to | $34. Where did those other 4 dollars come from?" | massung wrote: | This was my first time seeing said puzzle, and when I got to | the end I instantly was thinking? WTF you need to subtract $2 | to get to the price of the room, not add to try and get to some | imaginary amount of money spent. | | The room is $25. Everyone paid $25 for the room + a $2 "tip" to | the bellhop. | | That said, I'm going to have fun emailing it to my parents. ;) | jccalhoun wrote: | When I was a teenager this blew our minds and stumped us for | days. | briffle wrote: | I'm mid 40's, and really glad someone posted an answer, | because that was starting to drive me nuts :) | js2 wrote: | Surely you're familiar with the Monty Hall problem, but if | not: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem | rgoulter wrote: | The most recent viral maths problem I recall is Cheryl's | birthday out of Singapore. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emiMj8cCL5E | bentcorner wrote: | Rewriting the question as if the room was supposed to be free | also makes the bad math clear: | | > Three tourists stop at a hotel, and the manager tells them | that a shared room will cost $30. Finding the price agreeable, | they pony up $10 each and retire to the room. Later that | afternoon, the manager, who is honest, realizes that the room | was meant to be priced at $0. The manager orders the bellhop to | return the excess $30 to their guests. The bellhop, who is not | honest, takes $30 from the register and return only $1 to each | tourist, pocketing the remaining $27. | | > Now, each of the three tourists has spent $9, for a total of | $27. The bellhop has retained $27, which brings the total to | $54. Where did the other dollar go? | neogodless wrote: | When you word it that way, I get a bit angry when I read | "which brings the total to." | mister_tee wrote: | Yes, that phrase is definitely doing some work here :). The | followup might be "the total of what?" +1 to sibling post | on proper bookkeeping but we can also sum inflow/outflow | for each of the entities. There isn't a node where it makes | sense to add +$27 and +$2. | | The customers collectively are at -10*3 + 1*3 = -$27. The | hotel is at 10*3 - 5 = $25 The bellhop is at 5 - 1*3 = $2 | | And those sum to zero for the system; no money was created | or destroyed. | | Or, thinking in terms of physical bills, the bellhop's two | dollars are a subset of the 27 the customers paid out and | adding them is double-counting. The real math behind the | problem is just 27 = 25 + 2. | munificent wrote: | The puzzle is a lot simpler once you merge the 3 tourists into | a single unit since there is no reason to treat them | separately. Then it's: | | 1. A three-headed tourist gives $30 to the hotel. | | 2. The bellhop takes $5 from the hotel. | | 3. The bellhop gives $3 to the tourist. | | Now it's clear that the tourists are down $27, the hotel is up | $25, and the bellhop is up $2. | paxys wrote: | Didn't see Bezos's original comments, but yeah they seem weird. | He simply added up a bunch of random numbers from Amazon's | balance sheet and said "see we created exactly this much value". | [deleted] | theonlybutlet wrote: | In reality, the only measurable value wrt Amazon is it's retained | net profit. For its shareholders, it is the net capital gain on | their investment and dividends. | | Edit: Were it not for the above, assuming an efficient market, | the resources would be allocated elsewhere and therefore they | cannot lay claim to others profits and value add, considered a | cost in their results. | 838812052807016 wrote: | I wonder if you could apply similar reasoning to critique "carbon | neutrality". | iudqnolq wrote: | I found this a very good point. You can almost make a point that | Amazon should get credit for the entire value created by every | business on AWS, even if it's almost certainly technically wrong. | If you then add on the money they paid you, it becomes absurd. | They paid you the value (to them) of the thing they bought. | | > The point is, when you purchase a service from Amazon, the | future value created by your usage of the service belongs to you, | not to Amazon. Even if it seems like Amazon should get some | credit, there's no reasonable way to measure such things, no | scheme for attributing "value creation" fairly between the | producers of every good and service you may have consumed on your | way to running a business. Anyway, Amazon has already been | credited for providing those services since they made money off | the deal. Every business relying on Amazon contributes to that | $21 billion in profit Amazon made. | Trias11 wrote: | It's easy, depending how to ask question: | | Checks and Balances CSV: | | ============================================== | | Tourists,Cash Register,Bell guy | | 30,0,0 | | 0,30,0 | | 3,25,2 | goldenkey wrote: | To elucidate the bellhop problem, the $2 the bellhop has, should | be subtracted from the $27 that the patrons paid. This leaves you | with $25, which is the correct amount the hotel has after | refunding $5. | ikeboy wrote: | >The most egregious misrepresentation of value creation in the | letter is the $91 billion figure that Amazon has paid out in | compensation to employees. This is patently ridiculous. Every | single dollar of compensation paid out is done transactionally: | it is used to purchase labor. In a typical transaction, no value | is created. | | This is just wrong. The employer gets value because they make | more (in expectation) from the worker than they pay; the worker | gets value because they get paid more than the the minimum they'd | be willing to work for. There's surplus on both sides in most | transactions. | | The article makes some correct points. But it's frustrating to | see it combining those with nonsense. | zajio1am wrote: | Exactly. This is just a level of ignorance that for me makes | whole article not worth reading. | intergalplan wrote: | Which part's ignorant? If I pay $10,000 for land and $50,000 | in materials and pay $90,000 in labor to produce a building | that I sell for $200,000, did I create $50,000 in value? | $140,000 because for some reason my labor costs count as | value creation? $200,000 because all costs count as value | creation? | | [EDIT] Ah, I think I see, you don't like their assigning zero | value to changes in distribution of goods. That makes sense. | zajio1am wrote: | > Which part's ignorant? | | Statements like: "In a typical transaction, no value is | created." | | > If I pay $10,000 for land and $50,000 in materials and | pay $90,000 in labor to produce a building that I sell for | $200,000, did I create $50,000 in value? $140,000 because | for some reason my labor costs count as value creation? | | In terms of production (value creation), we consider | separately short-term inputs (e.g. materials) compared to | long-term resources (capital, labor). In this example i | would say that organization as a whole created $140000 in | value using its capital and labour and used $90000 to | compensate its labor (some other part to compensate | capital, pay taxes and so on). This is essentially how GDP | is computed, and also how VAT (value-added tax) is taxed. | mckeed wrote: | The value the employer gets is double-counted later as part of | the profit. | | The value to employees is tricky. Without Amazon they might | make more from a competitor with less market power. Without the | industry, they might make more selling or transporting things | directly. | anigbrowl wrote: | _The employer gets value because they make more (in | expectation) from the worker than they pay; the worker gets | value because they get paid more than the the minimum they 'd | be willing to work for._ | | The worker does not get value in that arrangement. The employer | is (often but not always) a price maker, the worker is (often | but not always) a price taker. This can change depending on | whether there are inelasticities of supply or demand. | ikeboy wrote: | Price takers still get value, since the price they're taking | is above their reservation price. The employer may capture | more of the total surplus if they have market power. | anigbrowl wrote: | I don't regard that as value; your reservation price is | what you can't afford to go below, not what you want. | ikeboy wrote: | Of course you don't want the reservation price; a | transaction at that price provides no value to you by | definition. | | You prefer a transaction at a higher price to one at the | reservation price. Satisfying that preference is | valuable. | JKCalhoun wrote: | > the worker gets value because they get paid more than the the | minimum they'd be willing to work for | | I can't find technical fault with your comment, but I think we | should be clear, very desperate people will work for nearly | nothing. | simonh wrote: | Even the fruit analogy is laughably wrong. If I have a basket | of oranges and you have a string of sausages, and we swap some | of each, there are no more sausages or oranges but the diet and | nutrition of both of us has significantly improved. That's why | merchants create value, buying from people with a surplus and | selling to people with a need. You can kind of understand why | medieval nobles didn't understand this, but in this day and age | it's not exactly rocket science. | | He gives his socialist credentials away later with the art | example, only a worker making something can possibly add any | value. It's the classic theory that managers and investors are | all parasites and only workers create value. Again, value can | absolutely be created by identifying an imbalance in supply | (labour) and demand (products and services) and then working | out how to resolve it. Somebody has to do it. | | I'm not saying Bezos' sums are credible or accurate or even | mean anything, but this critique is crazily off base. | albatruss wrote: | I don't know if the author is a socialist but Marx himself | would certainly agree with your first paragraph. In his own | words: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch | 05.htm... | simonh wrote: | I'm not sure how you can think that if you read Marx. He's | explicit that merchants are parasitic because he makes an | artificial distinction between use value and exchange | value. From your link: | | " If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results, | and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus- | value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities, begets | no value." | | He makes the distinction so that he can special privilege | the value of labour as productive "use value", but the | value of all goods derive from their use. The job of a | merchant is to buy something from someone who has no or | little use for it, and sell it to someone who has greater | use for it. | ezrast wrote: | I'm sorry for being frustrating! This criticism is valid, and | I've edited the article to clarify that I meant _market_ value. | I hope that makes it less nonsensical. | kixiQu wrote: | There is a directly following paragraph about how this exchange | is not exactly zero-sum, but so far from being representable by | the dollar value changing hands that it doesn't matter for the | purposes of identifying the value as $91 billion. | intergalplan wrote: | How's it nonsense? If I buy $499 dollars at face-value and sell | them for $500 there's no possible justification for the claim | that I created $500 of value. Perhaps I created $1. | | Paying for labor is _absolutely_ as transactional as paying for | other inputs to your business. Because you (hopefully) create | marginal value on top of that comp doesn 't mean the total comp | is _your_ value creation. | | You can't just add total employee comp to your "value created" | pile. There's maybe some marginal value creation you could | kind-of claim in that your presence increased employee comp | over some hypothetical world where you didn't exist--but that's | getting well into bullshit territory, since there's no way to | know some competitor you crushed wouldn't have ended up | creating more total value and paying their employees even more. | It's pure fantasy. | ikeboy wrote: | To be clear, I object to this sentence as nonsensical: | | >In a typical transaction, no value is created. | | As I explained, in typical transactions value is created for | both parties. | antisthenes wrote: | > As I explained, in typical transactions value is created | for both parties. | | The value created in a transaction is orthogonal to the | total sum of money exchanged in the transaction. That was | the meaning of the criticism. | | You are correct though in that the author worded it very | unfortunately, which undermined the critique. | kfarr wrote: | I was also surprised by this assumption and the lack of | discussion or validation: "in a typical transaction, no value | is created" | | From my econ 101 high school days I remember a super simple | example of 2 islands, 1 with only oranges and 1 with only | pineapples. Simply by trading 1 orange for 1 pineapple (and | vice versa) value is created since both parties get to | experience different resources which offer them economic | utility. | fighterpilot wrote: | Trade almost always creates value for both consenting | stakeholders. It should be the default assumption and anyone | arguing the opposite is talking nonsense. | | In rare edge cases it can be argued that trade doesn't create | value for consenting stakeholders: | | (1) Information asymmetries that don't rise to the level of | fraud, which cause one counterparty to make an uninformed | decision. | | (2) Trades that appeal to the dopamine system but otherwise | work against the individual, e.g. with social-media | doomscrolling, gambling, drugs, fast food. In this case the | individual has diminished agency to make the best decision | for themselves in all cases. | | Anything else? [I'm ignoring externalities here] | InitialLastName wrote: | I don't think TFA would dispute that transactions create | value. The argument being disputed is that the value | created by a transaction is meaningfully measured by the | value transacted. | | To use the pineapples and oranges island metaphor, imagine | that on island A (which has lots of oranges but no | pineapples) pineapples are valued at $1.1 and oranges are | valued at $1, and v.v for island b, where oranges are $1.1 | and pineapples are $1. | | If you and I trade an orange on island A for a pineapple on | island B, we both went from having $1 in fruit to having | $1.1 in fruit on our islands. The value created by that | transaction isn't $1, $1.1 (or $2.1 as Amazon appears to be | double-counting some of the value between revenue, profit | and wages), it's $0.2, which is the value we added to the | fruit by moving it between islands. | fighterpilot wrote: | The general way to measure value creation would be to sum | the difference between what both parties would be willing | to transact for something with what they actually | transact for it. | | In your example, the value creation is $0.2 ($0.1+$0.1) | due to the existence of a perfect substitute. | | In other cases the value creation may be 10x the turnover | or higher. For example, if there's a single surgeon that | can give me a life saving procedure that costs me $50k | when I would've happily paid $500k, then the value | creation for me is $450k and perhaps $20k for the | surgeon. | | In the case of Amazon, their numbers are probably an | exaggeration, yes. They've assumed that the turnover = | value creation, which is false reasoning, as we both | recognize. It might be higher or lower. The real number | might be 0.4x of what they stated, if I was to hazard a | guess. | | But since the whole idea of value creation flies over the | heads of so many people (and this misunderstanding of | basic economics has profound policy implications), | Amazon's exaggeration here is not a point I wish to focus | on. | InitialLastName wrote: | ... Isn't TFA entirely about Amazon exaggerating their | value creation and abusing the fact that said concept | flies over many peoples' heads? | fighterpilot wrote: | What's TFA? | | The blog post says that "no value" was created which is | the false claim we were discussing/debunking above. | | Amazon also made a false claim. Yes. So it doesn't seem | like we're disagreeing about anything. | animex wrote: | This reminds me of Tesla's pricing page which shows your future | gas savings deducted from the total cost of the car... | chmod600 wrote: | "In a typical transaction, no value is created. If I give you an | apple and you give me an orange, the total amount of fruit in the | economy remains constant. We can't create fruit by bartering with | it. We can only do so by foraging or cultivating an orchard." | | That seems wrong. If I trade, that means I value whatever I get | more than what I gave up; and likewise for the counterparty. | Isn't that a net positive even though nothing was physically | created? | Kalium wrote: | It makes sense if you believe value to be an objective thing, | where each good has a fixed value that is a fact. | | In a slightly more complicated model - or the real world - the | value of a good or service is informed by things like control | and location. Value is not objective, but subjective. Value can | be and often is created by moving good from a location where | they are values little to a location where they are valued | highly. | chmod600 wrote: | "It makes sense if you believe value to be an objective | thing" | | Does any serious economic philosophy actually believe that | foolishness? | Kalium wrote: | In feudal times, merchants were often derided for | supposedly charging a price different from the "true price" | of products. | | So perhaps not in any serious modern economic philosophy, | but people definitely arrive at this idea in naive ways. | grecy wrote: | The best explanation I've heard: | | If I pay you $10,000 to eat a pile of horse manure, then you | pay me $10,000 to eat a pile of horse manure we have: | | Created $20,000 of "value" for the economy and increased GDP | $20,000. That's all great for PR! | | In reality we both just have s--t eating grins. | skybrian wrote: | So okay, fraudulent transactions exist. That doesn't tell you | whether a particular transaction is fraudulent. | | The shipping industry is useful and using it to ship bricks | for some fraudulent scheme doesn't change that. The value of | a physical action isn't inherent in the action itself, but | rather depends on what purpose it serves. | khazhoux wrote: | This actually creates 1BTC. | robocat wrote: | And unless you both pay your tax on your $10,000 income, you | are defrauding the IRS (assuming you are in the US). | chmod600 wrote: | While funny, that doesn't really apply here. We're exchanging | an apple for an orange. That is a very reasonable barter | transaction and I see no reason that it doesn't create value. | | In fact, the value is likely to be _under_ counted by GDP. | People are taxed on income, so casual transactions like the | orange-for-apple trade are likely to be left out of GDP | simply because they are unreported. | | Your example is the opposite: over-counting GDP and the | participants paying thousands of dollars in taxes. | [deleted] | aidenn0 wrote: | Shortly after that he does acknowledge that collective labor | may be more valuable than individual labor. | | However we can all agree that Amazon doesn't create $91B of | value when it buys something for $91B in cash. The entire | supply chain behind creating the thing Amazon buys, plus the | raw inputs, creates something of value that Amazon then | consumes. | | You could maybe argue that in a market without Amazon, the | workers may have been paid only, say, $85B, so Amazon has | transferred $6B from consumers to workers. Even then, the value | of transferring $6B from consumers to workers is unlikely to be | $6B. | | If I tighten the last bolt on a car that is worth $20k, I have | not created anywhere near $20k in value. | chmod600 wrote: | I agree that the overall value that amazon is claiming is | dubious at best. It's conflating consumer/producer surplus | with net profits and conflating both of those with wages. | | But the whole point of the article is to debunk these | distortions and add clarity. Adding its own confusion and | distortions is not a good way to start. | dools wrote: | I think the point is that value is created here when the fruit | is grown not because we swap the fruit | Pfhreak wrote: | There are colloquial usages of 'value' that make this | conversation more complicated. We might describe the value as | the utility or desirability of the object -- use value -- where | I value food because I can eat it. | | Or the exchange value, ie, how many apples is this iron worth. | | Or the labor value, ie, how much labor went into producing this | item. | | Or the price, ie, how much is this item worth in money. | | It seems that in reading this sentence, the author is talking | about the labor value of the fruits. The various parties may | have different ideas about exchange values, prices, and use | values, but the labor value doesn't change because the items | have exchanged owners. | chmod600 wrote: | Doesn't it take labor to facilitate the matchmaking, | transportation, and transaction costs associated with barter? | simonh wrote: | The problem with accepting this premise is that it violates the | core principle of socialism that only labour creates value. But | yes, of course, if I have an orange grove and you have | chickens, if we trade then the diets and nutrition of both of | us improve. | | Identifying imbalances in supply and demand and resolving them | absolutely crates value, but that's the root of big scary nasty | evil capitalism, so we can't be having it. | | Not that Bezos' sums make and real sense at all either, but | this critique is way off base. | A_non_e-moose wrote: | Reminds me of the more adult 100$ debt riddle. Found it at | econlib.org by David Henderson, but I've heard multiple | variations before, so I have no idea where the original comes | from. | | "It's a slow day in some little town........ The sun is | hot....the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in | debt, and everybody lives on credit. On this particular day a | rich tourist from back west is driving thru town. He stops at the | motel and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect | the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night. As | soon as the man walks upstairs, the owner grabs the bill and runs | next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the | $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig | farmer. The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his | bill at the feed store. The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the | $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has | also been facing hard times and has had to offer her services on | credit. She, in a flash rushes to the motel and pays off her room | bill with the motel owner. The motel proprietor now places the | $100 back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect | anything. At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, | picks up the $100 bill, states that the rooms are not | satisfactory, pockets the money & leaves. NOW,... no one produced | anything...and no one earned anything...however the whole town is | out of debt and is looking to the future with much optimism." | [deleted] | Sniffnoy wrote: | Link to the actual post: | https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/an_answer_to_a.html | bartkappenburg wrote: | Hence the existence of a clearing house in the stockmarket: | cross off debt and credit in the whole market. Every one in | your story has 100 credit and 100 debt which makes them worth | 0. Aligning that in the right way makes a lot of sense :-) | cgb223 wrote: | This is a brilliant explanation of what a clearinghouse does | | First time I've understood it intuitively | zanybear wrote: | Interestingly, the scenario does not include transaction | costs. In the general sense that is money that stays in the | cycle (economy) ? | babaganoosh89 wrote: | Makes sense, all the people in town had $100 in debt and $100 | in outstanding invoices. | Rebelgecko wrote: | I saw an old PSA, maybe from the 50s or 60s, that had a similar | situation (sans prostitute). The twist is, it's a paprr check | instead of cash and the guy who wrote the check is broke. | There's this whole chain of endorsements as the check is passed | around town before it gets back to the guy who wrote it, saving | him from the shame of a bounced check. | OscarCunningham wrote: | This is why the central banks have been printing money. | jonny_eh wrote: | This is absolutely the correct answer. This joke/riddle gets | to the heart of what "money is". It's a form of | communication, it's merely a catalyst that enables trade. | | Another way to look at it: The debt (or the $100 bill) | allowed all these different professionals to offer services | to each other, without a direct back-and-forth barter. If | they had started with the prostitute renting the room with a | $100 bill, there would have been no debt. | | The reason why the physical $100 is so important (and why the | Fed prints money), is that it allows for trade to occur | without this accrual of debt. The existence of the debt | creates the perception of risk, which prevents further trade | from occurring. | dools wrote: | It's just double entry bookkeeping | dools wrote: | There is no print money operation. | | There is federal spending which creates net financial assets | by first issuing new bonds in exchange for existing reserves | and then spending those reserves back into the system. | | There is swapping reserves for bonds either as they mature or | as repurchases. | | There is federal taxation which destroys net financial assets | by draining reserves. | | That's it, there is nothing called "print money". | phaemon wrote: | Well the _main_ reason they print money is so that there will | _be_ money. That 's where money comes from. It's printed. | Hence the pictures on it. | celticninja wrote: | The rich tourist isn't even required if everyone communicated | about their respective debts. | burnte wrote: | Which no one will do because you want to put on a good front. | ric2b wrote: | Then why was the motel owner confident that the $100 bill | would come back to him so he wouldn't be caught stealing | from the tourist? | | Clearly he knew this was happening. | [deleted] | MR4D wrote: | To recast this in accounting terms, everyone had $100 in | accounts _receivable_ and also had $100 in accounts _payable_. | | To anybody who has ever had accounting (and nightmares of | t-accounts), this balances to zero. | jameshart wrote: | But everybody also knew everyone else was broke, so they had | mentally discounted the future value of their accounts | receivable (though obviously not to the point of actually | writing it off yet). So their subjective sense of their | future worth was negative, until the stranger showed up and | injected liquidity into the market. | tshaddox wrote: | This doesn't seem that puzzling to me. It only happens to work | because all the debt in the whole town just so happened to form | a perfect cycle, or equivalently (I think), everyone in town | was owed the exact same amount that they owed. That seems | exceedingly unlikely to occur and thus doesn't lead me directly | to any conclusions about the absurdity of the real economy. | teawrecks wrote: | They don't have to line up perfectly for there to be a cycle | and thus some minimum amount of debt everyone has that's not | real. Someone in the loop might think they owe $1000 and | actually owe $900, while someone else thinks they owe $100 | but actually owes nothing. | tshaddox wrote: | I'm not sure what you mean. Assuming that everyone knows | all of their own debts and credits, then they already know | their net balance. In the riddle, everyone already knows | their net balance is 0, so I would question why everyone is | so pessimistic about the future unless the terms of their | debts are less favorable than the terms of the credit | they've given out. | neilwilson wrote: | That's the classic stock/flow issue. | | What people forget is that values like turnover and wages are | denominated in $/month not $. | | Mixing up the two is like mixing up miles per hour and miles. | rytill wrote: | Not at all. I can't convert between miles per hour and miles | given an interest rate. | willismichael wrote: | You can convert between the two with an acceleration rate. | ric2b wrote: | That one is much simpler though, it's just a closed loop of | people owing each other. | | The interesting part is that it seems the motel owner was aware | that the loop existed and would end up back with him, otherwise | he would've been caught stealing from the tourist. | | If he already knew this he would be able to get people together | and agree to cancel all the debts, with no need for the | external $100 to show up. | kemotep wrote: | Getting everyone in a small community to agree to cancel all | debts would be like a biblical Jubilee[0]. | | So it is not too far-fetched of an idea to have happen. | | [0]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)?wprov=sfti1 | jdmoreira wrote: | I think this is a very smart piece. It exposes very clearly that | money is not value. | | You can bundle existing value from one side, add maybe an extra | bit here and there and collect money for the process. But how | much money you collected in the end has very little relation to | how much value you added to the system. Especially since some of | the shareholders did absolutely no value creation. | | Jeff Benzos is a very smart person and an excellent CEO. He used | to work for the Renaissance Fund as well. I really wish I could | hear his honest opinion on this piece. He will most likely never | read it but I hope he would and I hope he took the time to reply | with honesty and no ego. | igorzx31 wrote: | Jeff Bezos worked at D.E. Shaw not Renaissance Technologies. | Different funds. | jdmoreira wrote: | Thanks! I must have mixed it up in my mind. Wetware Memory | sucks. | MR4D wrote: | > that money is not value. | | Very much so! | | Money is a tool used for accounting, while value is a system | for perception. They interact, but as you say, are not the | same. | Grimm1 wrote: | I think it quibbled over standard language that every business | uses in it's releases and used Bezos as a whipping post to make | a point because it wouldn't have gotten traction otherwise. | jdmoreira wrote: | So what? That's why is meaningful. It exposes falsehood that | we are too distracted to see and understand. I for one | appreciate having my mind blown once in a while and my dogmas | questioned. | gitanovic wrote: | This | | I also read the letter from Bezos and thought "ok is just | useless propaganda" | | But having someone break it down for me and questioning | every statement, was somewhat useful, and possibly | increased my awareness to this kind of krap... ehm double | standards | throwaway789394 wrote: | Sounds like labor theory of value. Not really that great of a | theory. | dools wrote: | I wish someone would change the dictionary definition of money | to "record of value" rather than "store of value". It would | clear up a lot of economic misconception. | Kranar wrote: | I thought it was poorly written and fails to understand some | simple financial terms. When people say value is created for | shareholders, they don't mean shareholders created that value; | they mean that the value of the thing owned by shareholders has | increased. | | I own shares of a company (I am therefore a shareholder), if | the value of that company increases then the value I own as a | shareholder increases, hence value was created for me as the | shareholder. This is such a basic principle that the author | failing to understand this is kind of embarrassing. | | There are other basic things the article gets wrong, like | saying that bartering doesn't create value which is patently | false. Bartering does in and of itself create value by | allocating resources to those who wish to consume it. When | Alice trades an apple with Bob for a potato, it's usually done | because Alice has a need for a potato and doesn't have a need | for the apple, and vice versa for Bob, hence the allocation of | apples and potatoes goes to where it's most desired. This | increases the efficiency of resource allocation which in and of | itself creates value. Furthermore the bartering in and of | itself causes an incentive to produce more apples and potatoes. | | Honestly this is really basic stuff and not worth writing an | entire article bickering over semantics. | burkaman wrote: | > When people say value is created for shareholders | | From the Bezos letter: | | "Summarizing: | | Shareholders $21B | | Employees $91B | | 3P Sellers $25B | | Customers $164B | | Total $301B" | | This article is criticizing "employee value" and "customer | value", not shareholder value. | jakubp wrote: | You are wrong about apples and potatoes - the blog post | author does mention your story just under different term: | utility, which is a standard way to express the notion you | touched: the total utility of an apple and a potato in the | right hands is higher than utility of them in the wrong | hands. So barter increases utility, but economy as a whole | isn't any more valuable because of it (externally it'll trade | the same). It's also echoed in OP's point about utility of | money (and a question whether Amazon actually increases or | decreases total utility in the economy). | | Bezos claims he created 310 B of value and you say "as | shareholder I care about value of the company", but you and | other shareholders who own (together) 100% of Amazon didn't | get 310 B of value, did you? | | That's the thing. Neither did the economy "gain" all this | value. If I work for 10 hours and earn a 1000 uSD, my | employer didn't create 1000 USD worth of value. We traded my | time/effort/exhaustion for money. Maybe there was some actual | value created through that work for us or economy/society, or | maybe it was meaningless work (and we even stole value from | the society by e.g. burning me out). | LeifCarrotson wrote: | This is a philosophical piece, the fact that it's really | basic stuff is exactly why an entire blog post (better yet, a | journal article or book) should be written to bicker over | those semantics. Those financial terms are loaded with | meaning and the author believes that meaning to be invalid; | the semantics are the entire point. | | What does it mean to 'create value'? As a passive shareholder | who does nothing but own shares that increase in value, have | you actually created anything? How can you have created value | without creating anything? If Alice values potatoes at 1.01 | apples and Bob values apples at 1.01 potatoes, and they | trade, _maybe_ they 've created 0.01 apples worth of value | but they certainly have not created two, they started with | two and ended with approximately two. If they change their | mind and trade back, they've not created 0.02 apples worth of | value, they've revealed that the whole thing was a waste of | time. If the value of your time is $14.95 an hour, and you | get an Amazon job making $15 an hour, Amazon's addition to | the economy is $0.05 per hour not $15. | | No, it's the farmer who starts with dirt, water, sunshine and | diesel and grows the apples and potatoes who is creating | value. "Efficiency of resource allocation" are a lot of big | words that do little more than justify the speaker diverting | a little of the revenue stream to themselves. | | Money is only very loosely connected to value creation, | because there are two separate factors that tie them | together: The amount of value your work adds to society, and | your ability to extract money from society. | | The whole point is that no human, not even Jeff Bezos, can | generate 200 billion dollars worth of value by working. Not | by carrying a lot of boxes really fast, nor by thinking | really hard, nor by working long hours; not even if he pushes | even more boxes while thinking really bright ideas while | saving time by peeing in a bottle instead of going to the | bathroom, he's simply not that many orders of magnitude | smarter or stronger or more dedicated than other humans. And | yet his net worth is close enough to $200B that it makes | sense to round up about $1.7 billion dollars worth of value, | while other people are carrying boxes for $15 an hour and are | orders of magnitude away from rounding up to a net worth of | $0.1 billion dollars. | | The disparity between value generated and money extracted is | the core injustice that the open letter glosses over with | casual semantics and that the article seeks to understand and | expose by being unconventionally precise. | simonh wrote: | >they've not created 0.02 apples worth of value, they've | revealed that the whole thing was a waste of time | | If you select an example with almost identically | substitutable goods, no wonder you miss the point. Lets use | oranges and sausages in the example instead. Now we're | trading meat for fruit. What's the value to you of not | dying of scurvy or protein deficiency? | | Identifying imbalances in supply and demand, and working | out how to resolve them creates huge value, otherwise all | trade would be pointless. | | That's where investors and business owners come in. They | identify an imbalance in supply and demand between the | labour of employees and the needs of customers. Sure the | employees could do that themselves, and that's fine. It's | not as if it's illegal, good luck to them. Power to the | people. But the point is somebody has to do it and it | absolutely creates value. | jay_kyburz wrote: | >Identifying imbalances in supply and demand, and working | out how to resolve them creates huge value, otherwise all | trade would be pointless. | | Yes sure, but to have claimed to "create" the value, it | can't simply be taken from someone else. If other people | were already selling apples and sausages and you move in | a put them out of business then you haven't created | anything, you have just captured and monetized value for | your own shareholders. | | Whats more, If the folks that used to sell apples, also | sold bananas, but you drove them out of business, and now | bananas are no longer available, value may have been | lost. | SuoDuanDao wrote: | Sometimes I get concerned by how unabashedly people put | forward frankly socialist talking points in public | discourse these days. But then I see how incredibly | common sense refutations by people like yourself are, and | feel a little less worried. | simonh wrote: | Well, I don't think socialists are completely wrong about | everything. It's just that particularly in economics the | basic theory they're working from is deeply flawed. On | the other hand while market forces are incredibly | powerful, they're not an end in themselves. Both | capitalism and socialism taken to ideological extremes | can be incredibly dangerous and harmful, but the ideas in | both have plenty to offer. | Aunche wrote: | The money made by holding Amazon is value created, not | value extracted. In 2000, Bezos, early employees, and | investors could have decided to cash out by issuing | dividends or buying back their own shares with Amazon's | profits. Instead, they chose to reinvest that profit into | Amazon in the form of new fulfillment centers and new | workers. This gave Bezos even more potential profit, but | again he chose to reinvest it in the company. This | compounded for two decades, so now Amazon is a trillion | dollar company. Without someone holding the stock, Amazon | would not have grown to the extent that it had. Even if | Bezos sold his shares to someone else, that other person | needs to decide to reinvest Amazon's potential profits back | in the business. | makomk wrote: | Do you know how much those potatoes are worth to the farmer | who starts with dirt, water, sunshine and diesel and grows | them if the supply chains and infrastructure aren't there | to get them to consumers? _Zero._ We saw this with the | pandemic when the normal supply chains were disrupted and | farmers literally ended up plowing their potatoes back into | the fields because there was suddenly no way to sell them | all. In fact, technically it 's negative - the fuel and | time to dispose of them costs something. (Of course, all | the left-wing activists blamed some capitalist conspiracy | for this, as though the potatoes would magically fly from | field to plate if we did away with capitalism.) The core of | the modern economy is specialization - instead of everyone | growing their own food, a much smaller number of people | grow food for everyone, freeing up a bunch of time for | other things beyond just basic sustenance - and the actual | multipliers involved are pretty huge. | Gabriel_Martin wrote: | FWIW, I don't think one needs to believe in capitalist | conspiracies to feel repulsed by a situation in which | stranded food is being buried in bulk to minimize losses, | because there's not market mechanism to get it to people | during a pandemic, while there are miles of lines at food | banks, and record levels of food insecurity. Not | everything needs to be couched in an ideological battle | between capitalism and socialism, IMO. | ipaddr wrote: | "The whole point is that no human, not even Jeff Bezos, can | generate 200 billion dollars worth of value by working" | | This is untrue and unlikely. | | Invent a star trek type transporter. I bet you could sell | your work for 200 billion in cash or 1 trillion in fedex | stocks. | | You are never going to create 200 trillion value working | for Jeff so he pays you 200 billion. Amazon is setup so the | value create goes to Jeff and other shareholders. If you | are lucky you get 100th of the value you are part of | creating. (Yearly profits + yearly valuation increases) / | total employees / 1000 is your pay if you are lucky | skybrian wrote: | It's a bit easier to see the value of trade when there is | some schlepping involved. Buying fish off the boat and | selling it in the grocery store provides a useful service | for the people shopping at the grocery store, since they | don't have to go to the docks. Reversing that would be | nonsensical and destroy value; nobody needs more fish at | the dock. | | Just because it's the same commodity doesn't mean it's | worth the same amount at every time and place. | Transportation and storage are technologies that add value | by taking surpluses and moving them where they are needed | more. This is still true when the cost of transport is very | cheap. | | Amazon is clearly doing something very useful with its | warehouses and delivery. This is all about getting stuff to | people whenever they want it. | | How much this is really worth is unclear. You can't take | prices at face value. A monopoly could charge higher prices | than other companies would charge for the same service in a | competitive industry, and the difference is how much of the | value goes to the company versus the buyer. But doing | calculations using prices is often the best we can do. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | Shipping goods from one place where they're available to | another where they're needed is definitely a way to add | work and create value, I don't dispute that at all! | | It's pretty obvious that fish slowly going bad on a boat | is worth little, and that driving an expensive reefer | truck to get it from there to a grocery store (and | subsequently, for the fishmonger to process and package | it) is a valuable, constructive process. | | However, for something closer to the real world, if you | set up a regulatory system where you're the only one with | the registration needed to sell fish, then you buy 1000 | kg of frozen Tilapia from fishermen at $2/kg, hire a | freight company to drive it a few dozen miles from the | docks to the packing plant for $300, spend $300 to have | it inspected, and sell it to the packer at $4/kg, have | you really added anything? You've made $1400 profit, but | you've barely lifted a finger to make some phone calls. | That's not 'value creation' or a unique skill in | 'identifying supply and demand', you're abusing market | inefficiency to rip people off and undeservingly make | yourself richer. And then to pat yourself on the back at | the end and say you created value equal to the | fishermen's profit plus the $600 of services you bought + | your own $1400 profit is just adding insult on injury. | | Doing calculations using prices is easy, but we can do | better than to take them at face value. Amazon is clearly | doing something useful, yes, but not $301B worth of | useful. They're also positioning themselves to take more | money out of the connection they've established between | buyer and seller than the shipping, processing, and | warehousing costs. | skybrian wrote: | Well, counterfactuals are tricky. In the fish example, if | you compare to nobody selling fish at all, they are | adding value by creating a market where there wasn't any | before, even if it's in a monopolistic way. But if your | alternative is a competitive fish market, maybe no value | is added, but the monopoly is charging more for it. | | Charging more is capturing consumer surplus value. If it | weren't still worth the money, they wouldn't pay for the | fish. The higher price more accurately reflects that | value of the product to the people who still buy it. | (Assuming they know what they're doing.) | | Whether or not charging more is good or not depends on | your point of view. Buyers and sellers have different | opinions. I believe "charge more" is a slogan generally | repeated approvingly around here when we're talking about | developer salaries? | | Here's an example of capturing consumer value that's | considered relatively benign, good even: you can listen | to a lot of music for free these days, but then Patreon | came along and convinced a lot of people that artists | should be paid more. The market price in a perfectly | competitive market is that music should be free, but | sometimes the fans themselves disagree with that. | | It doesn't seem like there is any objective truth to the | matter as to how much music is worth. There are only | opinions. Sometimes you can do some math, but the input | is opinions, so the output is aggregate opinions. | | The same seems true of other prices. Costs usually set a | floor. Consumer value is higher than that, but people | disagree on what's "worth it." | Aunche wrote: | >if you set up a regulatory system where you're the only | one with the registration needed to sell fish | | This doesn't happen though. There's nothing stopping you | from setting up your own fish whole selling company if | you think that is lucrative. Sure there will be | regulatory hurdles, but if you can make a case that you | can do it for cheaper while still making a profit, you | can find an investor to pay for your lawyers. | | The fisherman wants to sell all their fish with a price | that they know in advanced. However, the packer only | wants to the fish that they know that they can sell to | supermakets, and doesn't want to buy more than they have | to. Without someone assuming the risk of holding a bunch | of frozen fish for a long time, the fisherman wouldn't | being fishing as much, which means less fish ends up with | the customer, and less value being created. | [deleted] | jay_kyburz wrote: | >Amazon is clearly doing something very useful with its | warehouses and delivery. This is all about getting stuff | to people whenever they want it. | | >How much this is really worth is unclear. | | We can let the market tell us how much its worth. We can | look at how much people are willing to pay for it. | | How much extra is a customer willing to pay to have it | shipped from amazon than go pick it up in a store? | | How much cheaper is a seller willing to sell a product to | have it on amazons store? | jdmoreira wrote: | > Just because it's the same commodity doesn't mean it's | worth the same amount at every time and place. | | That's what arbitrage is | MR4D wrote: | >If Alice values potatoes at 1.01 apples and Bob values | apples at 1.01 potatoes, and they trade, maybe they've | created 0.01 apples worth of value but they certainly have | not created two, they started with two and ended with | approximately two. | | I believe this to be incorrect. For instance, let's say | that Alice runs a hamburger stand, and wants potatoes to | sell alongside her burgers. Conversely, perhaps Bob makes | apple pies which he then sells. | | In a situation like this, they both would value (the verb) | the other food more than the one they had, which would | cause them to enact the trade - they are increasing their | wealth by doing so. (This leads to a whole additional | conversation about wealth, but I'm trying to keep it short | here.) | | The reason they would value it more is because they could | create more value from the other's food. Bob can sell an | apple pie for perhaps 10 bucks, of which most is profit. He | cannot do anything with a potato, so the value of a potato | is significantly less. Likewise, Alice might be able to | sell one potato's worth of french fries for $5, generating | a significant profit, and thereby creating value. | underdeserver wrote: | It is false, but so is Bezos' claim - if you would take $100K | in salary, but wouldn't take $90K, that means your time is | worth X where $90K <= x < $100K. Let's assume x = $95K. | | If your work is worth to me $120K, and you accept $100K, you | have created $20K for me. | | Therefore our employment agreement created $25K in value each | year. | ImPostingOnHN wrote: | If someone pays you $100K, then your value is, by | definition, $100K, because the value is what someone is | willing to pay. 100% of that value, by the way, is created | by you developing from a $0K-salary baby into a | $100K-salary adult. So that's 100K value created by the | employee (and the people in their life to an immeasurable | degree). | | If your work is worth $120K to your employer, the | difference, like you said, is $20K of value created by the | employee. | | All this to importantly note that the employment agreement | didn't create $120K of value -- the _employee_ did, _for_ | the employer. | | If the employer takes 2 of you, each individually providing | $120,000 of value to their customers, and, through managing | you as a team, manages to extract $250,000 from a customer, | then the employer has finally created value -- | specifically, $10,000 worth. | Joker_vD wrote: | It's a interesting approach to accounting, except for the | fact that the manager is not paid $10k when employers are | paid $120k each. | | And anyway, that's not the manager who produced that | value: it's the sales team, without them the product is | literally worthless. So what is manager paid for, again? | | And even more interesting question now would be "what are | shareholders are paid for anyway, after they've been | repaid the initial investment with the interest on top?" | pnutjam wrote: | sales team creating value... hilarious... LOL | Joker_vD wrote: | I tried to pull reducto ad absurdum as hard as I could; | judging by the score on that comment, I've succeeded. | Joker_vD wrote: | I remember reading something like this in Marx's first | volume of Capital, where he was explaining how the labour | is "self-expanding", that is, producing more than it costs | to sustain (except he used work-hours in accounting). | Funnily enough, if you read Marx's account closely enough, | there is no unfairness in payment: what's bought is | "ability to work", its marginal price in the competitive | market is exactly the cost of living, and the fact that the | price of the resulting product the higher is irrelevant. | MattRix wrote: | Maybe you need to read the article again, because in this | comment you are conflating different kinds of "value" as if | they are all equally meaningful. | lottin wrote: | No, the author is right. He says that barter does not create | market value which is true. Barter may or may not lead to a | better allocation of goods, in terms of exchange efficiency, | but the market value (i.e. price) of those goods and the | amount of goods remains unchanged. | cperciva wrote: | _one might consider that, taking the marginal utility of money | into account, a dollar in the hands of an Amazon employee is in | fact more valuable than the same dollar in the hands of an Amazon | shareholder._ | | I'm not at all certain this is correct. Yes, Jeff Bezos owns a | lot of Amazon; but so do pension funds and other institutional | investors. Amazon has a lot of very wealthy employees, and I | wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the average employee is | wealthier than the average beneficial owner of Amazon stock. | extra88 wrote: | I don't know about average but the _median_ Amazon employee, | including all those working in warehouses, driving trucks, etc. | is unlikely to be wealthier. | ingleswood wrote: | The right tail of Amazon shareholders' wealth is much longer | than the right tail of Amazon employees' wealth, since it | includes the richest (and 21st richest) person in the world. | The best paid employee in the world probably doesn't work for | Amazon, and they are also much less rich compared to the | median employee than the richest person is compared to the | median wealth holder. | extra88 wrote: | I don't know what your point is. | | I was making a distinction between "average employee" which | can be distorted by having vastly wealthier individuals | amongst their number, and "median employee,' which is not. | I hope Amazon does have a large cadre of well-paid | employees but they're vastly outnumbered by the warehouse | workers, delivery staff, etc. | | I was responding to someone speculating that because a lot | of Amazon stock is presumably held by pensions and other | institutional investors, the value of _those_ stocks goes | to very average people who are not wealthy (by U.S. | standards). I think that even if a lot of Amazon stock is | held that way, if you have a job for which you receive a | pension or contribute to a retirement fund that 's worth a | damn, you're not wealthy but you're probably wealthier than | the bottom half of Amazon employees. | ingleswood wrote: | My point is that the 'average employee', as compared to | the 'median employee', is probably distorted much less | than 'average shareholder' compared to 'median | shareholder'. | | Therefore I don't agree with you that while the average | employee might be richer than the average shareholder, | the median employee might be poorer than the median | shareholder. If the average employee _is_ richer than the | average shareholder (which I doubt), then the median | employee is probably much, much more richer than the | median shareholder. | extra88 wrote: | Thanks for the clarification. | | Part of my thinking assumes Bezos himself counts as an | Amazon employee so all by himself he heavily affects the | difference between average and median employee (he might | be the only billionaire employee, Andy Jassy is | presumably one of the wealthiest employees and he's below | $500m). | | Since Bezos is also a shareholder (I assume the largest | individual shareholder), he also distorts that average. | However, since I assume there are orders of magnitude | more shareholders (through their stake in pension and | retirement funds) than working for Amazon, all those | additional data points smooths the difference out more. | maerF0x0 wrote: | > Money and labor are both more abstract than fruit, so there is | a little bit of leeway to interpret employment transactions as | being non-zero-sum. | | This paragraph gets into something i've been pondering about | GDP/societal wealth. Imagine we have a carpenter and a plumber | both sitting idle and who needs eachothers' services. If they | cannot agree upon an exchange or price then the system loses out | on the potential productivity. The system as a whole is made | poorer by actors being disagreeable. | | I have often wondered how rich life could be if we were more | agreeable to give to the other the gifts of our marginally unused | productivity (rather than giving it to netflix, facebook, | instagram, and tik-tok...)? | | Would poverty be erased, or other desirable things be achievable? | | Now look at the ideas of a minimum wage or of being frugal. Both | are a kind of refusal to participate in the economy leaving | behind marginal potential value creation. If we refuse to spend | our money it doesnt fund development of projects, if we refuse to | work at a certain rate we lose out on the goods that could have | been built. | | Anyways that's a musing I was reminded of by this piece. | mdoms wrote: | > I have often wondered how rich life could be if we were more | agreeable to give to the other the gifts of our marginally | unused productivity (rather than giving it to netflix, | facebook, instagram, and tik-tok...)? | | You think life would be better if we all never stopped working | and simply 'did our part' 16 hours a day without compensation? | maerF0x0 wrote: | that is approximately the most negative spin you could have | made on my point. | | The point is that if the trade doesn't occur, both parties | lose out on what good could be and sometimes we cannot | actually see the good but could value the good of the other. | I'm not saying everyone should go work for bezos for free | because his utility will rise. But more like in normal | community interpersonal relationships. Say a small business | owner wants to use some services, but cannot afford an | expensive experienced person like a large business could (Say | a high priced contract engineer) during a quiet period the | resource goes idle and the business loses out, when both | could have had some value if one would be more agreeable and | say "look, I'm not working right now and sure I'll work for | X% off for that reason and because I like you" | | And where it fits with the commentary on minimum wage is that | it technically would be illegal if that percent off dropped | below minimum wage, then no trade could happen leading to | vicious cycles rather than virtuous ones. The business that | got its website built can make more sales and can pay more | for high priced engineers. Whereas the business that cannot | get a website built loses out on sales and cannot give any | future work to the engineer. There's a sort of symbiosis in | the health of the actors in the system and their ability to | pay for generally good things. | bskrobisz wrote: | You've painted the above comment as a negative spin, but | I'm not really understanding, in your post, where it isn't | just a less extreme version of this same spin. | | You're suggesting a human should spend otherwise free time | (which would otherwise be spent enjoying leisure, which we | can presume has high positive value for that human) to | generate value for others, in the hopes of receiving value | in return? | | In a system where this isn't an iterated version of the | game (e.g. you're only playing against other actors a small | number of times each), I don't see how this could function | without systems like social credit which are abusable at | higher levels than the individual actors. | maerF0x0 wrote: | Yeah, i think part of what maybe you're assuming into the | picture is that the engineer in the question is | overworked and their labor has a net negative utility in | their life without sufficient compensation to make up for | that negative. | | I see it more like people like/love their craft and | sometimes it makes sense to just do it because one likes, | and somehow gets "something" out of helping the other | person too. | | Think about a depression where people are refusing to | work for eachother because no one can pay, nonetheless an | engineer could build a website for a business just | because they know if the business goes under it has | perpetuated and exacerbated the depression... another | more quaint example might be a cobbler who would fix | people's shoes for whatever they can pay, because if he | sticks to the normal price few could afford it and he'd | be idle, but if he's generous enough to just do it | anyways then at least the one in need is no longer. | | In typing back and forth I guess it basically boils down | to charity. The idea that charity could potentially | nullify and turn around a vicious cycle in an economy | because folks selflessly added to virtuous cycles. It | doesn't have to be as brutal as a depression, but could | be simple as a local business person you care about who | cannot compete with the unlimited funds or whatever from | another company. | gshulegaard wrote: | This is an interesting article but it starts off on the wrong | foot for me: | | > This is patently ridiculous. Every single dollar of | compensation paid out is done transactionally: it is used to | purchase labor. In a typical transaction, no value is created. | | This, as I understand it in a limited fashion, is not true. There | is a concept of the velocity of money in which more value than | the initial transaction is created: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money | | This is, in part I believe, why a nation's GDP can exceed it's | nominal cash in circulation. In particular, the Great Depression | was a period of low monetary velocity and yet staggering | inflation; the term "stagflation" (stagnation + inflation) was | coined to describe this phenomena. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation | | Which in turn calls into question the following criticism: | | > But however you look at it, taking full credit for every single | dollar of compensation as value creation-- as if Amazon, and not | the US Mint, created those dollars, and as if the many, many | millions of hours of labor consumed by the company in return were | valueless-- is a ghastly overstatement. | | While I would never want to make it seem like Amazon is some sort | of altruistic entity who simply makes the lives of those on it's | payroll better, it is not as ghastly an overstatement as claimed. | There is a reason recovery from the Great Depression involved | _job creation_ through The New Deal and war-time production and | not simply the US Treasury "creating those dollars". | | These kinds of economic inconsistencies continue throughout the | post. In particular there seems to be a pervasive belief that | Monetary Supply is finite/controlled by the Federal Reserve and | therefore cannot be used to measure value creation: | | > But the value you created isn't the money. The money already | existed and was floating around the economy long before you | picked up the brush. The value you created was in the art, which | is now in someone else's hands. | | This is a false premise. Dollar-value estimations of created | value like GDP are often imperfect measurements, but they _do_ | exist; furthermore, they often exceed the nominal amount of | financial notes in circulation. There also certainly is | _additional value_ that isn 't captured by a dollar value, such | as the value an owner places on a created piece of art, but that | is not the same as _no_ monetary value created. | | I don't know who the author is, but even my limited grasp of | economic theory makes me question the main thrust of their | arguments. But I also know my grasp of economic theory is | threadbare at best, so perhaps I am completely off base. | ezrast wrote: | You're not off base. I have no economic credentials and my | discussion of the subject was simplistic. I appreciate your | analysis. | | The point I was trying to make wasn't that dollars shouldn't be | used to measure value, but that if you're going to do so, those | dollars need to actually correspond to something that isn't | just pieces of paper or bits in a bank computer. It's not | particularly interesting for $450 dollars to change hands in a | vacuum; the transaction is given meaning because it represents | something about the painting that was created and sold. | | Similarly, velocity of money is given meaning because of the | premise that each transaction functions to optimize resource | distribution (i.e. a typical trade is in the interest of both | parties). If the farmer and the mechanic from the Wikipedia | article were to game the system by continuing to sell the same | $40 of corn to each other over and over, velocity of money | would technically increase, but then it would no longer | meaningfully represent the health of the economy. The validity | of the measure depends on this sort of double counting being | precluded or accounted for (at least, in principle it does; I | have no idea how much this kind of confounding factor shows up | in real life). | | The biggest intended takeaway of my post wasn't even that the | dollars being discussed don't correspond to anything, it's that | they correspond to a bunch of different types of thing that | don't sum together cleanly. That I had to make a bunch of finer | economic points to get there was kind of an accident, and one | that I might reframe the article to avoid if I were to rewrite | it today. | gshulegaard wrote: | Hmmm! Well thank you for your response! I think that I find | myself far more in agreement with this additional detail. | | > It's not particularly interesting for $450 dollars to | change hands in a vacuum; the transaction is given meaning | because it represents something about the painting that was | created and sold. | | And this: | | > The biggest intended takeaway of my post wasn't even that | the dollars being discussed don't correspond to anything, | it's that they correspond to a bunch of different types of | thing that don't sum together cleanly. | | In particular resonate with me. This intended meaning I | (personally) lost in the economic semantics. Hopefully my | comment about not wanting to paint Amazon as some altruistic | entity alluded to my own personal nuanced feelings here, but | to expand on something that I think is more aligned with the | point you were trying to make: | | There is no doubt in my mind that the employment | opportunities generated by Amazon provide value to the | economy at large, but that doesn't mean that the value is as | great as it could, would, or even should be. I think that | there is a fair argument to be made that the labor practices | at Amazon strays into labor exploitation and they only can do | so since they benefit from an non-competitive market dynamic. | And that bigger picture is potentially one of the bigger | pieces of context which isn't captured by a simple payroll | figure. | btilly wrote: | The one figure that this didn't quibble with is also wrong. | | Net profit definitely adds to shareholder value. But suppose that | I make $30 billion, reinvest $20 billion, and create something | that is worth $90 billion. My net profit is now $10 billion. But | I actually added $100 billion in shareholder value! | | Jeff Bezos knows this, and knows this well. For many years Amazon | ran at a net profit around $0 because it was reinvesting all of | its profits in new businesses. So it was adding shareholder value | like crazy! (And people who didn't understand this were walking | around saying, "Why is Amazon worth so much? They don't even make | a profit!") | | Of course doing this calculation correctly includes estimating | the present value of the thing I created. And that is notoriously | hard. So the proxy used in the real world is market cap. However | market cap is volatile and subject to change based on the | emotions of speculators. Certainly Amazon's actions last year are | not the whole story for why they added $600 billion in market | cap! | | So while net profit is the wrong measure, there is no measure | that can be used which really is right for "added to shareholder | value". | jdmoreira wrote: | It was also compounding the money that would otherwise have to | be paid in taxes if it were not reinvested. He is an excellent | CEO! | B1FF_PSUVM wrote: | Well, there's number of users and ARPU, or equivalently how | much money flowed through ... | | I understand telecoms and others get warm fuzzies from that. | hinkley wrote: | The CEO class is still mostly old enough to remember corporate | raiders, and of course we have the modern equivalent where | groups buy companies, saddle them with debt, and exfiltrate the | money long before the company goes bankrupt. | | Having enough liquid assets to prevent a hostile takeover is | not the most profitable thing short-term but it does protect | you. Amazon is so big it doesn't have that problem. It's simply | too big for anyone to get their teeth around. | | I think this is another case of "you are not a FAANG, if you | act like one it won't turn out the same for you." | adventured wrote: | The ownership position that Bezos had through most of its | history was enough to make a hostile acquisition nearly | impossible. That's how they survived the bad years post | dotcom bubble without being acquired for relatively cheap. | It's very hard to pull off a successful hostile takeover if | you have prominent insiders with ~25-35% of the company and | they don't want to sell. Certainly after they began reporting | AWS results and the stock skyrocketed that was the end of any | serious hostile acquisition risk (in the few years prior to | the AWS numbers they were a $100-$175 billion market cap | company, which eg Walmart could have afforded had regulators | allowed it and insiders not made it nearly impossible). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-28 23:01 UTC)